Liking a post has not been deemed a violation. You are taking what I said and trying to add 90% to it.
Do you understand “called out”?
Liking a post has not been deemed a violation. You are taking what I said and trying to add 90% to it.
Do you understand “called out”?
Sure. Is “messiah” specific to a religion?
The old testament isn’t specific to Christianity either. Nor are the terms “lord and savior”.
They are merely critiques on the way people rationalize behavior in a leader, the same way MODS call others deranged.
It’s a ctitique of worshipping a leader.
Or in the TDS case, “hating” or being obsessed with one
Jezcoe: WuWei: Jezcoe:In the thread in question there was a reference to “two Corinthians” which is not a jab at religion but at the President’s gaffes at expressing the the basic tenets of faith.
Are things like that part of the trend?
Would this trend and question of giving a likes to things be updated in the TOS or is this by Mod discretion?
And there was a hint reference a hint given in response. Raising awareness of something that might have been missed.
Is this too complicated? Because if it is it won’t work.
I look for first blood. Your post on “technically illegal” generated the response reference religion.
Ok, who is making the “technically illegal” argument?
The same member referenced in the hint from yesterday.
Ok, remind on the hint.
Everybody here will take an ok post and add 10% to it until it is not ok. Hint before it gets not ok.
Most posts are not made in isolation. Yours was ok, his needed a hint. Take it or don’t.
Likes is mod discretion. I will be.
First blood is a strange way to put things.
Is that a subjective standard left to mod discretion or will it be spelled out in a TOS.
What if an honored guest feels that a Mod has drawn first blood?
Is there recourse to that or is it left to mod discretion?
I am seriously not trying to ruffle feathers here, I am just looking for clear direction on this.
First blood is a military term. Call it dirty hands, where it started, whatever.
It is a subjective standard for hints. Violations are spelled out in the TOS. You seem to be treating hints the same as actual sanctions?
Then you flag it, PM management, or bring it in here. Mod evaluation is handled by the administrator. We discuss things among ourselves as well. Look for feedback, opportunities to improve. He will evaluate and make the necessary adjustments on us. Understand you may never know what the result is.
I’m not taking it as ruffling feathers. These are good questions. Good to have clarity.
Well these hints are coming from a mod so I feel the need for clarity in this matter.
Are these hints in lieu of flags?
I don’t flag when there are attacks on me because I really don’t care that much and would rather let posts stand and simply disengage … but that is my prerogative.
I am uncertain of this meaning of pointing out a “trend” because of the subjective nature of it.
Do with it as you will.
This all sounds like religious right cancel culture to me. If you’re going to use your religion as a bssis for rationalizing your politics, then why cant we point out hypocrisy?
Not religious right. All religion. Nobody is going to do it to anybody. Including atheists, it is still a belief system.
You can. What you will not do is target a specific member with it over and over and gang up.
You bring up a good point.
If I bring up a point using religion, have I opened the door?
Yes.
Don’t harp on it and don’t gang up.
WuWei:Sure. Is “messiah” specific to a religion?
The old testament isn’t specific to Christianity either. Nor are the terms “lord and savior”.
They are merely critiques on the way people rationalize behavior in a leader, the same way MODS call others deranged.
It’s a ctitique of worshipping a leader.
Or in the TDS case, “hating” or being obsessed with one
Agreed. Hence the reason you got a hint and not a sanction. Add Corinthians and you have the line.
This is not a debate forum. Address your posts to staff, me for now, not to each other please.
What you will not do is target a specific member with it over and over and gang up.
I have spread the “lord and savior” critique quite broadly. Sorry I don’t keep an accounting on each individual poster.
Maybe your what “seems” isn’t actually what’s going on.
WuWei: Jezcoe: WuWei: Jezcoe:In the thread in question there was a reference to “two Corinthians” which is not a jab at religion but at the President’s gaffes at expressing the the basic tenets of faith.
Are things like that part of the trend?
Would this trend and question of giving a likes to things be updated in the TOS or is this by Mod discretion?
And there was a hint reference a hint given in response. Raising awareness of something that might have been missed.
Is this too complicated? Because if it is it won’t work.
I look for first blood. Your post on “technically illegal” generated the response reference religion.
Ok, who is making the “technically illegal” argument?
The same member referenced in the hint from yesterday.
Ok, remind on the hint.
Everybody here will take an ok post and add 10% to it until it is not ok. Hint before it gets not ok.
Most posts are not made in isolation. Yours was ok, his needed a hint. Take it or don’t.
Likes is mod discretion. I will be.
First blood is a strange way to put things.
Is that a subjective standard left to mod discretion or will it be spelled out in a TOS.
What if an honored guest feels that a Mod has drawn first blood?
Is there recourse to that or is it left to mod discretion?
I am seriously not trying to ruffle feathers here, I am just looking for clear direction on this.
First blood is a military term. Call it dirty hands, where it started, whatever.
It is a subjective standard for hints. Violations are spelled out in the TOS. You seem to be treating hints the same as actual sanctions?
Then you flag it, PM management, or bring it in here. Mod evaluation is handled by the administrator. We discuss things among ourselves as well. Look for feedback, opportunities to improve. He will evaluate and make the necessary adjustments on us. Understand you may never know what the result is.
I’m not taking it as ruffling feathers. These are good questions. Good to have clarity.
Well these hints are coming from a mod so I feel the need for clarity in this matter.
Are these hints in lieu of flags?
I don’t flag when there are attacks on me because I really don’t care that much and would rather let posts stand and simply disengage … but that is my prerogative.
I am uncertain of this meaning of pointing out a “trend” because of the subjective nature of it.
Do with it as you will.
As I said, no problem.
In lieu of a flag? No. We have no control over what is flagged, only how they are handled. In lieu of deleting the post and locking you out? Most definitely. In lieu of an official mod warning? Yes.
Yes, it is your prerogative.
The meaning is because of the subjective nature of it in part. Mostly because it needs to stop regardless of the intent.
There is another trend that deserves attention, though by now it may be more of a fixture of this place. Taking a poster’s comments out of context in order to accuse them of having the worst possible evil hate filled destructive motives imaginable. It’s disgusting.
WuWei:What you will not do is target a specific member with it over and over and gang up.
I have spread the “lord and savior” critique quite broadly. Sorry I don’t keep an accounting on each individual poster.
Maybe your what “seems” isn’t actually what’s going on.
And maybe that’s why you got a hint instead of a sanction. I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
There is another trend that deserves attention, though by now it may be more of a fixture of this place. Taking a poster’s comments out of context in order to accuse them of having the worst possible evil hate filled destructive motives imaginable. It’s disgusting.
Please PM me an example of what you’re talking about.
I have spread the “lord and savior” critique quite broadly.
Why?
…
This is not a debate forum. Address your posts to staff, me for now, not to each other please.
Again.
Are we all good? Clear?
If we are, how about a like on this post.
Why?
Because I think many Trump supporters have elevated him into a near God like status, a person who can do no wrong, is the only hope and is always correct. Thus the “lord and savior” critique
Not really. The religion thing. For eight years we were told we all had Obama altars in our homes where we worshipped Obamessiah. But now suddenly people are po’d about pointing out their own worshipping habits?
WuWei:Why?
Because I think many Trump supporters have elevated him into a near God like status, a person who can do no wrong, is the only hope and is always correct. Thus the “lord and savior” critique
“Near”. And what impact do you think that has on a person of faith?
“Trump is your lord and savior!”
“Trump is not lord and savior.”
Which one is personal?
Not really. The religion thing. For eight years we were told we all had Obama altars in our homes where we worshipped Obamessiah. But now suddenly people are po’d about pointing out their own worshipping habits?
I’m not po’d. Did I say you can’t say someone has a Trump altar in their home? Did I say you can’t say someone worships Trump?
What did I say?
Would you tell a Muslim Trump supporter, “Trump is your Allah”?
I got a like from Lucy! (Called Out)
Now @Lucy , if you tell someone they’ve got a Trump alter in their house, then someone else comes along and quotes your post and the 1st Commandment and I come along and like your post, what are we doing together, who gets the hint?
Oh and someone else comes along and accuses him of idolatry.
Nemesis: WuWei: Nemesis:Question on “likes” now being moderated. Can posters flag a “like” they consider to be liking a violation?
Likes are not being moderated. Encouraging poor behavior may be called out.
What sense does it make to do that?
Thanks. It was a genuine follow on question from the change in rules of the forum that liking a post that is later deemed a violation the person who liked the post will face a sanction.
Does this also apply if someone ironically likes a post?
Liking a post has not been deemed a violation. You are taking what I said and trying to add 90% to it.
Do you understand “called out”?
It actually was a genuine question. I was not trying to add anything.
You answered my question.